Bay Leaf. Raitt et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 31, 201913034644 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/034,644 02/24/2011 Bay Leaf Raitt 930181.630 1200 155691 7590 07/31/2019 Seed IP Law Group/Valve (930181) 701 FIFTH AVE SUITE 5400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 EXAMINER GARNER, WERNER G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/31/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com pairlinkdktg@seedip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BAY LEAF RAITT, JOSEPH EDDY DEMERS, YAHN WILLIAM BERNIER, BRIAN RATCLIFF JACOBSON, MARC SEAN SCAPARRO, and KARL IAN WHINNIE1 ____________________ Appeal 2017–010820 Application 13/034,644 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before JILL D. HILL, ARTHUR M. PESLAK, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. HILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Bay Leaf Raitt et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Valve Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2017–010820 Application 13/034,644 2 BACKGROUND Independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 are pending. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed invention. 1. A method for editing video game world data with a network computing device, the method enabling actions, comprising: identifying a plurality of components of the video game world data for recording within a video game world; executing a sequence of animation for the video game world for subsequent display, wherein the sequence of animation comprises a plurality of video game frames and includes at least one identified component, wherein the at least one identified component includes one or more of joint motion data, joint orientation data, joint position data, joint rotation data, pose data, posture data, and facial expression data; recording the video game world data for the at least one identified component, wherein at least a portion of the video game world data is generated by the execution of the sequence of animation and recording the video game world data occurs prior to a rendering and display of the plurality of video game frames such that the recorded video game world data is to be rendered in order to generate a displayable video game image; selecting at least a portion of the video game frames and editing its corresponding video game world data for the at least one identified component; and providing the edited video game world data to a material system prior to a subsequent display of a modified sequence of animation that corresponds to the edited video game world data for the at least the selected portion of the video game frames. Appeal Br. 17 (Claims Appendix). REJECTION I. Claims 1–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Brook (US 2008/0268961 A1, pub. Oct. 30, 2008) and Carrera 7 DAZ 3D (Dec. 11, 2008). Final Act. 2. Appeal 2017–010820 Application 13/034,644 3 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Brook discloses the limitations of claim 1, except for (1) the identified component including one or more of joint motion data, joint orientation data, joint position data, joint rotation data, pose data, posture data, and facial expression data, and (2) providing edited video game world data to a material system prior to a subsequent display of a modified sequence of animation that corresponds to the edited video game world data for the selected portion of video game frames. Final Act. 3–5 (citing Brook ¶¶ 34, 39, 71, 77, 82). The Examiner finds, however, that Carrara discloses (1) editing an identified component, the identified component including joint motion data, joint orientation data, joint position data, joint rotation data, pose data, posture data, and facial expression data, (2) providing edited video game world data to a material system prior to a subsequent display of a modified sequence of animation that corresponds to the edited video game world data for the at least the selected portion of video game frames. Id. at 5–6 (citing Carrara p. 121 (“when using the Poser Native Importer, you can, in Carrara, edit the imported objects (adjust morph targets, move the objects, move the joints, import a pose or a cloth, edit a shader, etc.”)); 14 (citing Carrara (“after you add content, you can create or modify shaders to enhance the realism [in Carrara]”)). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious improve Brook’s method of creating video in a virtual world by including Carrara’s material system that is able to add, create, or modify shaders of objects to enhance the realism of the scene “to provide powerful animation tools that users can use to create videos by using game software.” Id. at 9. Appeal 2017–010820 Application 13/034,644 4 Appellants argue claims 1–28 as a group. Appeal Br. 10–16. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2–28 stand or fall with claim 1. Intended Purpose Appellants first argue that the Examiner’s proposed combination would render Brook “unsuitable for its intended purpose.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellants appear to define Brook’s intended purpose as “storing a video of a video game as it is played in order to reproduce the played content faithfully for subsequent pre- and post-production processing.” Id. (citing Brook ¶ 12). Appellants argue that, at best, Brook’s gameplay modification is directed to “either (1) changing a perspective or (2) adding elements into the gameplay sequence (e.g., advertisements, avatars, or sounds),” which do not alter the veracity of the game reproduction. Id. at 11. The Examiner responds that, although Brook discloses re-creating an event exactly as it originally occurred during gameplay, Brook is not limited to faithfully re-creating the events, because Brook allows for director editing the event to make it more compelling. Ans. 25–26. Further, the Examiner finds that Brook’s intended purpose is “utilizing stored gameplay data and game states that may be modified to recreate and edit the event in a compelling manner.” Id. at 28. The Examiner reasons that “Brook recognizes that ‘[its] video rendering software 24 is capable of some small- scale editing either automatically or subject to user input, such that a video may be created. For more complex video editing a stand-alone or separate application may be used for postproduction.’” Id. at 29 (citing Brook ¶ 89). Carrara, the Examiner contends, is the type of video editing application “that may be used in conjunction with Brook to carry out more complex video Appeal 2017–010820 Application 13/034,644 5 editing,” such that the combination of Brook and Carrara is “quite appropriate.” Id. The Examiner has the better position. Although Brook does state, in paragraph 12, that its software tool can re-create a gameplay experience from stored data in a manner that “reproduce[es] the event faithfully, but allowing for much more thoughtful pre-production, post-production and point of view, lighting, and sound placement,” we are not persuaded that the intended purpose of Brook can be defined so narrowly that such faithful reproduction is required, particularly given that Brook recognizes that its software is capable of some small scale editing, and additional editing can be performed with “a stand-alone or separate application may be used for postproduction.” Brook ¶¶ 12, 29. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Brook’s intended purpose can be defined, more broadly, as “utilizing stored gameplay data and game states that may be modified to recreate and edit the event in a compelling manner.” Ans. 28. Given this intended purpose, modifying Brook with Carrara would not render Brook unsuitable for its intended purpose. Teach Away Appellants also argue that, because Brook does not “envision changes to the actual game play that is recorded (e.g., changing posture of a gameplay character),” Brooks teaches away from the Examiner’s proposed modification. Appeal Br. 12. Appellants further contend that Brook teaches away from the proposed modification because “Brook clearly requires recreating the event exactly as it originally occurred during the game play.” Id. Appeal 2017–010820 Application 13/034,644 6 To teach away, the prior art must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). While Brook does state once, briefly, that its software “reproduce[es] the event faithfully,” we are not persuaded that this statement rises to the level of criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging modifying Brook with Carrara to achieve editing in such a manner that event reproduction is not “faithful” in a sense that joint, pose, posture, or facial expression data of a component is edited. Not Combinable Appellants then argue that Carrara is not combinable with Brook, and a skilled artisan would not have looked to Carrara to modify Brook, because Brook and Carrara “relate to entirely different types of software (i.e., animation creation and video editing), while also utilizing entirely different types of data.” Appeal Br. 14. According to Appellants, Brook stores gameplay data “in a state log for use in later rendering” (id. (citing Brook ¶¶ 37, 42), whereas Carrara’s software creates 3D graphic and animation, which differs from editing existing data, such as the gameplay data stored by Brook. Id. (citing Carrara p. 1). Appellants contend that “at best, Carrara allows a user to import a character . . . to create an animation sequence in contrast to Brook, which records and recreates an animation sequence in the format of state data.” Id. (“Carrara specifically teaches that character files that are imported ‘do [] not contain any animation.’”). The Examiner responds that “Carrara has enabled the import and export of animation in DirectX format since version 6 (Carrara [p. 4]). Contrary to appellants’ assertions, Carrara is capable of both creating and editing animations (Carrara [pp. 651-732]).” Ans. 30. According to the Appeal 2017–010820 Application 13/034,644 7 Examiner, because Brook’s data is “written in a reproducible format, and Carrara allows for the importation of animation using DirectX files, Brook and Carrara are [compatible] with each other.” Id. at 31. Again, the Examiner has the better argument. Carrara indeed discloses importing and exporting “geometry, materials, skinning, and animation in DirectX format.” Carrara p. 4. Further, Carrara specifically discusses importing animation data for skeletons. Id. at p. 114 (“When checked, animation data (optionally, from a different file) is imported to the selected skeleton beginning at the specified time, in seconds.”). Rendering Claimed Invention Obvious Appellants lastly argue that, even if Brook and Carrara were combined, the result would be a system “where a user would take a recorded gameplay sequence (e.g., as taught by Brook) and modify it by creating new animations (e.g., by using the software of Carrara) and importing them into the recorded gameplay sequence,” rather than, as claimed modifying animations of the recorded gameplay sequence. Appeal Br. 15. The Examiner responds that this argument is premised on an incorrect assumption that Carrara can only create new animations, and “Carrara permits the importation of animation via DirectX files” and “permits the editing of animation using editing or animation tools.” Ans. 31. As explained above, we agree with the Examiner that Carrara permits importing animation for editing. For this reason, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that, if Brook and Carrara are combined, the result would be creation of new animation, rather than editing of existing animation. Appeal 2017–010820 Application 13/034,644 8 Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the pending rejection of claim 1. Claims 2–28 fall with claim 1. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Brook and Carrera. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation